u.s. department of transportation - national highway ...the vehicle title and registration module...

7/12/2018 GMSS

U.S. Department of Transportation - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Fiscal Year 2019

NHTSA Grant Application NEW MEXICO - Highway Safety Plan - FY 2019

State Office New Mexico Traffic Safety Bureau

Application Status Submitted

Highway Safety Plan1 Summary information

APPLICATION INFORMATION

Highway Safety Plan Name: NEW MEXICO - Highway Safety Plan - FY 2019

Application Version: 2.0

INCENTIVE GRANTS - The State is eligible to apply for the following grants. Check the grant(s) for which the State is applying.

S. 405(b) Occupant Protection: Yes

S. 405(c) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements: Yes

S. 405(d) Impaired Driving Countermeasures: Yes

S. 405(d) Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law: Yes

S. 405(d) 24-7 Sobriety Programs: No

S. 405(e) Distracted Driving: No

S. 405(f) Motorcyclist Safety Grants: Yes

S. 405(g) State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive: No

S. 405(h) Nonmotorized Safety: Yes

S. 1906 Racial Profiling Data Collection: No

STATUS INFORMATION https://nhtsagmss.crm9.dynamics.com/main.aspx?area=Nav_Application&etc=10046&page=Applications_HQ&pagetype=entitylist&web=true#8022… 1/235

https://nhtsagmss.crm9.dynamics.com/main.aspx?area=Nav_Application&etc=10046&page=Applications_HQ&pagetype=entitylist&web=true#8022

7/12/2018 GMSS

Submitted By: David Lapington

Submission On: 7/3/2018 11:44 AM

Submission Deadline (EDT): 7/9/2018 11:59 PM

2 Highway safety planning process

Enter description of the data sources and processes used by the State to identify its highway safety problems, describe its highway safety performance measures, establish its performance targets, and develop and select evidence-based countermeasure strategies and projects to address its problems and achieve its performance targets.

Data Sources in Identifying Highway Safety Problems

Federal : Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS); NHTSA Countermeasures That Work, 8th Edition; Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 622, 2008; NHTSA Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies; FMCSA and FHWA traffic-related statistics; and US Census Bureau population statistics.

Crash Data System: The NMDOT contracts with the University of New Mexico Traffic Research Unit (TRU) to manage the statewide database including report processing, filing, storage, and reporting functions. The State has implemented an updated data entry system, and activities are ongoing to further develop the new data system to accept electronic data. Crash data is derived from police reports submitted on the uniform crash report form used by all New Mexico law enforcement agencies The State also maintains its own fatality tracking system to facilitate access to the most current fatality statistics.

Crash and Fatality Reports: Using data analysis and data linkage techniques, the University of New Mexico TRU combines crash records, highway data, driver records, geographic information and census data to produce annual statewide crash and DWI reports. TRU also makes available, via its website, monthly statewide, county and NMDOT district fatality reports; community crash profile reports; and State, county and community crash maps.

Driver and Vehicle Data Systems: New Mexico’s Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) maintains the State’s comprehensive driver and vehicle databases. The MVD is in the process of implementing a new Tapestry driver and vehicle integrated system. The implementation of the Tapestry system addresses many of the recommendations addressed in the latest state Traffic Records Assessment.

The driver module compiles driver records that include citations and convictions, driver education and improvement course information, court abstracts, penalty assessments from law enforcement, sanctions from other jurisdictions, notices of suspension or revocations, medical reports, clearances from courts and other jurisdictions, and fees paid.

https://nhtsagmss.crm9.dynamics.com/main.aspx?area=Nav_Application&etc=10046&page=Applications_HQ&pagetype=entitylist&web=true#8022… 2/235


7/12/2018 GMSS

The vehicle title and registration module contains field edit and validation checks to ensure data is accurate, and VINs are decoded to validate vehicle information. Tapestry’s NMVTIS real time integration is fully complete and uses all facets of the database including title number verification and NCIC stolen vehicle and branding checks.

The State of New Mexico participates in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) that seeks improve the safety of commercial vehicles and transport, and thereby, to reduce the number of commercial vehicle crashes.

Roadway Data System: NMDOT’s Roadway Data System provides information on roadway usage, vehicle miles traveled, speed monitoring and road characteristics. The State is currently updating their roadway data system to the FHWA-sponsored All Roads Network of Linear Referenced Data (ARNOLD). The ARNOLD Phase I project encompassed the development of the geo-spatial representation of the NMDOT Linear Reference System to include the national highway system, state-owned and maintained roads, local roads, and federal roads. NMDOT now has geo-spatial representation on 53,599 miles of roadway that previously only had a tabular representation.

Other Data/ Information Sources: Program/project sub-grantee reports and operational plans, NM Seatbelt Observation surveys, Attitude and Awareness Survey on Highway Safety Issues in New Mexico (via MVD customer surveys), statewide injury surveillance system, NM State Police data, and statewide or local assessments.

Highway Safety Planning Processes

The TSD staff works with NHTSA and a group of traffic safety planning participants and partners to identify highway safety needs, establish performance measures and targets, and develop evidence-based countermeasure strategies and projects to address priority areas and achieve the performance targets established for each of the program areas.

Initiate planning process with Traffic Safety partners Coordinate HSP planning with SHSP-HSIP common measures Use data analyses to develop problem identification Develop performance measures with justifiable targets Research and select EB strategies; determine projects to achieve targets Submit HSP to NHTSA for review and approval Assess outcomes; identify issues for next HSP planning and development process

Highway Safety Problem Identification Process

1. Meetings and Data Review

The problem identification process was conducted primarily between February and June of 2018, and work on problem identification was a major focus of the monthly HSP meetings. NMDOT/ TSD staff reviewed data from



7/12/2018 GMSS

the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the annual New Mexico Crash Report, DWI Report and the most recent highway data. These reports provide detailed state, county and city level data, data on where and when crashes and fatalities occur, contributing factors in crashes, and who is primarily involved in these incidents. High crash locations are identified by county and city intersections, and rural highway corridors.

TSD Section Heads and Program Managers meet throughout the year with traffic safety planning participants/ partners, including community partners/ advocates, program stakeholders, and government agency representatives interested or involved in traffic safety issues. Information from these discussions and reports from Impaired Driving Workgroup and Traffic Records Committee meetings were presented at HSP planning meetings to help identify issues of concern and local problem areas.

In addition, law enforcement operational plans and sub-grantee reports were used to assist in the problem identification process. Operational plans include a presentation of current, localized data analyses that pinpoint times and locations of higher crash rates.

As part of the problem identification process, the University of New Mexico (UNM) Traffic Research Unit (TRU) made a data presentation to the NMDOT and TSD staff, and traffic safety partners. For each NHTSA/GHSA performance measure, ten years of FARS and preliminary State data was presented (2008-2017) showing annual and five-year moving average data.

Statewide and county or city rankings data were detailed for a number of measures including: crashes, fatalities (total, rural, urban), alcohol-involved crashes, alcohol-involved fatalities, serious crash injuries, motorcyclist fatalities, pedestrian fatalities and speeding-related fatalities. TRU staff discussed any caveats of the data, and discussed how such caveats or weaknesses could potentially impact the problem identification process.

2. Determining Highest Priorities Based on Problem ID Process

Following the data presentation by the University of New Mexico Traffic Research Unit (TRU), TSD staff, traffic safety partners and TRU presenters discussed the implications of the data and developed a list of the top priority issues and areas. Priorities were determined based on the magnitude and seriousness of the problem and the consequences of non-intervention. The immediacy of the issue, economic factors, the numbers of individuals affected by the issue, and other relevant factors were discussed and considered as part of the process of determining the highest priorities.

3. Input Solicited from TS Partners

TS partners not able to attend HSP meetings were sent an email requesting their input on identifying traffic safety issues/problems. Comments received are considered.

4. Assessments

Recommendations from the most recent Impaired Driving, SFST and Traffic Records assessments are integrated into the Impaired Driving and the Traffic Records Strategic plans. Assessment recommendations are used to identify needs, and to develop strategies and projects to improve programs and outcomes.



7/12/2018 GMSS

Highway Safety Performance Measures and Target Setting Process

1. Meetings

Staff from the Traffic Safety and Planning Divisions, NM FHWA, and planning and data contractors conducted meetings between February and May 2018 to discuss data processes to be used for assessing performance measures data and develop PM targets for the HSP and HSIP. Target setting for the common measures, as well as the other TSD core measures was conducted in May 2018 with TS partners, including NM FHWA staff responsible for developing the HSIP. The University of New Mexico Traffic Research Unit provided an extensive data review of the NHTSA/ GHSA core and behavioral measures and on other relevant State data. Annual data and five-year moving averages data were presented for each performance measure. Data charts included final FARS and State data for each year 2008–2015, FARS ARF and State preliminary data for 2016, preliminary State data for 2017; projections for 2018 and 2019 data points were established using an excel generated linear trend line.

In setting the 2019 HSP performance targets, TSD staff and traffic safety partners did not rely solely on the data projections, but used the data in combination with their discussions regarding other relevant factors and their assessment of the potential safety impacts of various strategies and projects (see below: 3. Other – Review of Relevant Factors). Any variation in the targets from the data projections is detailed in the justification section for each performance measure.


TSD partners were well represented at HSP performance measure meetings. Partners not able to attend HSP meetings were sent an email requesting their input on the proposed performance measures and targets. Comments received are considered.

3. Other - Review of Relevant Factors

Once the top priority issues and high-risk areas and populations were determined, Program staff and TS partners discussed issues relevant to establishing targets for the performance measures including: funding; grantee issues; policy or procedures issues; implementation issues; changes to existing or new relevant statutes resulting from the recent legislative session; prevailing or projected economic factors including the continued impact of low gas prices and the increases seen in increased travel and higher speeds on the roadways.

Discussions also included the continuing impact of environmental factors, particularly in the southeastern part of the State where the oil and gas industry continues to see increased travel on interstate and rural roadways, and increased numbers of utility and heavy load vehicles.

Evidence-Based Countermeasure Strategies Selection Process

1. Meetings



7/12/2018 GMSS

Between April and June, TSD program and planning staff and TS partners met during HSP, staff and other meetings to discuss and select evidence-based countermeasure strategies and projects. Participants used both the Countermeasures That Work, 8th Edition, 2015 and the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 622, 2008 as reference documents for their discussions.

Within each priority program area, discussion was conducted on identification of feasible evidence-based strategies, clearly identifying both the target audience and the target areas based on the problem identification process. Discussions were conducted regarding the availability of funds, pertinent laws, public support and any other relevant factors that could impact the ability to implement projects to address identified problems, including available manpower resources.


TSD partners not able to attend HSP meetings were sent an email notification requesting their input on potential strategies and projects. Comments received are considered.

3. Determining the Potential Impact of Countermeasure Strategies

In assessing the potential impact of countermeasure strategies selected to address identified problems in each program area, TSD program and planning staff and TS partners evaluated whether the strategies were linked to the problem ID and the program performance measures and targets. Issues not listed during the problem identification process, but that are components of the National Priority areas and that have been shown to be successful in addressing traffic safety problems are still considered in the countermeasure strategy and project selection process.

Strategies were assessed as to whether their impact would be direct or indirect. DWI enforcement would be considered to have a direct impact, while the media or educational efforts supporting it would be considered indirect. Both types of strategies are considered important components for addressing identified problems. The breadth of the impact of the strategies were considered - whether the scope of the strategies would be local, regional or statewide. In most cases, a particular strategy by itself is not considered to be comprehensive, but a combination of strategies would be expected to address the identified problem areas, and to achieve the performance measure targets.

4. Identifying funds from all sources

The TSD Director met with program and budget staff to go through the process of identifying available sources of funds, determining available funds for each program area and anticipated funds for proposed projects.

Projections of NHTSA funds for the coming year were based on previous years' appropriations in each program area and anticipated carryover funds. Availability of funds for each of the program areas were assessed based on NHTSA guidelines for the approved uses of each category of funds. Revenue projections of State funds were based on the previous year’s actual amounts and anticipated carryover funds. Adjustments are made later in the fiscal year once actual amounts become available. State funds are used for State-mandated and other projects as well as for the 20% match for federal funds, as required.



7/12/2018 GMSS

During the initial project proposal process, program and finance staff determined if the agency or organization requesting TSD funds has access to other funds to conduct the project. Certain agencies may receive State or other sources of funds for the administration of a project, but lack the funds for implementing activities that would address the identified traffic safety related issue.

The State actively pursues other Federal sources of funds such as from FMCSA and FHWA. The Traffic Records Program particularly works closely with FMCSA and FHWA to fund projects that further the goals of the Statewide Traffic Records Strategic Plan.

Identify the participants in the processes (e.g., highway safety committees, program stakeholders, community and constituent groups).

Participants in the New Mexico Highway Safety Planning Process

Traffic Safety Division (TSD) Director TSD Program and Project Managers NHTSA – Region 6 Administrators NMDOT Planning and Safety Division; Traffic Technical Support Bureau; Engineering NM Department of Public Safety; State, city, county, tribal law enforcement agencies Federal Highway Administration, New Mexico Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Bureau of Indian Affairs; Various Tribes University of New Mexico – Geospatial and Population Studies Traffic Research Unit; Center for Injury Prevention Research and Education; Continuing Education Department of Finance and Administration, Local Government DWI Program NM Taxation and Revenue - Motor Vehicle Division Department of Health - Emergency Medical Services and Scientific Labs Division Administrative Office of the Courts Office of the Attorney General; Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor NM Regulation and Licensing Department – Alcohol and Gaming Division MPOs, Mid-Region Councils of Government Safer New Mexico Now, including law enforcement liaisons RK Venture – Advertising, Design and Branding Marketing Solutions Mothers Against Drunk Driving DWI Workgroup Traffic Records Executive Oversight Committee Traffic Record Coordinating Committee TSD Planner/ Technical Writer

Enter description and analysis of the State’s overall highway safety problems as identified through an analysis of data, including but not limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, and judicial



7/12/2018 GMSS

data, to be used as a basis for setting performance targets, selecting countermeasure strategies, and developing projects.

e. Description and Analysis of Overall Highway Safety Problems

2014 and 2015 data are final; 2016 data are preliminary

In 2016, there were 45,071 crashes on New Mexico’s roadways – 237 fewer than in 2015. Despite this decrease in crashes in 2016, there was a 35.9 percent increase in traffic fatalities (298 vs. 405). Although overall injuries were higher in 2016 compared to 2015, suspected serious (Class A) injuries decreased by just over 13 percent (1,329 vs. 1,153).The total human capital cost of the 45,071 crashes in New Mexico is estimated at $1.6 billion. This represents the 2016 value of human capital costs for 361 fatal crashes and 44,710 non-fatal crashes.

Bernalillo, Doña Ana, Santa Fe, San Juan and Sandoval counties had the highest number of total crashes, while Bernalillo, Chavez and Curry had the highest crash rates per vehicle miles traveled.

In 2016, Bernalillo, San Juan, Doña Ana, Santa Fe, McKinley and Cibola counties had the highest number of fatalities in crashes with 53.8 percent of the State’s total. Fortunately, preliminary 2017 State data shows an estimated 7 percent decrease in crash fatalities compared to 2016, with Bernalillo, San Juan, Doña Ana, McKinley and Eddy counties accounting for 53.7 percent of these fatalities.

A large majority of crashes occurred on urban roadways (85.1%), but 54.4 percent of crash-related fatalities occurred on rural roadways. Rollover crashes accounted for 45.9 percent of rural Interstate fatalities and 38.4 percent of rural non-Interstate fatalities.

2016 data show that the top counties for serious (Class A) injuries were Bernalillo, Doña Ana, San Juan, Santa Fe, Chavez, Sandoval and Valencia. These seven counties accounted for 75.3 percent of all serious injuries in crashes.

Fatalities in 2016 were high, in part, because of a greater number of fatalities per crash. In 2015 there was only 1 crash that resulted in three fatalities, while in 2016 there were 6 of these crashes. There were also two crashes in 2016 with four fatalities each, compared to none in 2015.

Although the percentage of alcohol-involved crashes is at its lowest level in the past five years (4.6%), alcohol-involved crash fatalities increased by 38 percent in 2016 from 2015, and the fatality rate is at the highest level in the past five years. The largest increases in fatalities in alcohol-involved crashes occurred in Bernalillo, Doña Ana, Luna, Sandoval, San Juan, San Miguel, Santa Fe and Torrance counties.

In 2016, 28 percent of fatalities involved an alcohol-impaired (BAC .08 and above) driver. Counties highest for alcohol-impaired fatalities were Bernalillo, San Juan, Doña Ana, Santa Fe, and McKinley.

In DWI arrests where BAC levels were known, 87.2 percent had BAC levels above .08 (14.1% more than in 2015); 52.5 percent had BAC levels of .16 and above (7.9% more than in 2015).

As of December 2017, of 10,344 DWI arrest cases in 2016, just over 53.5 percent resulted in a conviction, 14.6 percent resulted in a dismissal and 31.8 percent were awaiting disposition.



7/12/2018 GMSS

In 2016, there were 31.0 DWI convictions per 10,000 New Mexico residents. Counties with higher conviction rates than the overall State rate included San Juan (78.5), McKinley (43.8), Lea (40.7), Eddy (38.5), Chaves (35.2), Sandoval (33.4) and Santa Fe (31.6). Repeat DWI arrests have declined by 25.1 percent since 2012, and the number of repeat DWI convictions has decreased by 36.1 percent since 2012.

2016 data show unrestrained occupant fatalities increased by 27.8 percent from 2015; 45.6 percent of unbelted fatalities occurred on rural non-interstate roads, 36.1 percent on urban roads, and 18.4 percent on rural interstate roads.

In 2016, speeding-related fatalities declined by 14.7 percent from 2015. Drivers under age 30 accounted for 44.4 percent of speeding drivers in crashes.

After falling by 17.4 percent in 2015 from 2014, motorcyclist fatalities are showing a 19.5 percent increase in 2016; unhelmeted fatalities increased by 9.5 percent. Bernalillo County, by far, has the highest number of motorcyclist fatalities.

After a 25.7 percent decrease in 2015 from 2014, pedestrian fatalities increased by 40 percent according to 2016 data. Bernalillo, San Juan, McKinley, Doña Ana and Rio Arriba counties had the highest number of pedestrian fatalities overall. Of of all pedestrians in alcohol-involved crashes, 89.6 percent were under the influence of alcohol. Three counties – Bernalillo, McKinley, and San Juan – accounted for 78.7 percent of alcohol-involved pedestrian crashes.

The teen (ages 15-19) driver crash rate (per 1,000 NM licensed teen drivers) is at its highest level in the past five years, at 126.5.The young adult (ages 20-24) driver crash rate is at its highest level in the past five years, at 78.8.

Despite the overall high crash rate, under age 21 drivers in fatal crashes continue to decline and dropped by 12.5 percent between 2015 and 2016.

Identified Focus Areas

High-Risk Locations: Bernalillo, Doña Ana, San Juan, Santa Fe, McKinley, Cibola counties; Crashes: Urban Locations; Crash Fatalities: Rural Locations

High-Risk Persons/ Activities: Pedestrians; Unhelmeted Motorcyclists; Teens & Young Adults

High-Risk Activities: Alcohol/High BAC; Unrestrained; Speeding

Enter discussion of the methods for project selection (e.g., constituent outreach, public meetings, solicitation of proposals).

Solicitation of Proposals and Project Selection Processes

Once countermeasures for identified problems or issues were determined, TSD used three project solicitation methods. The primary method is an annual review of ongoing law enforcement projects with State, local and tribal governments. These multi-year contracts go through a renewal process to determine



7/12/2018 GMSS

progress towards achieving goals and to update operational plans and budgets. Only those projects making measurable progress towards State and local goals are selected to continue.

For new projects, TSD directly solicited proposals from interested traffic safety partners or posted requests for proposals on the NMDOT website. Project proposals include three major parts: project administrative information, the project description including a problem identification statement supported by data, and budget information. Once proposals are received, the TSD Director and program managers meet to discuss the proposals and score them based on merit and proposed costs.

Projects selected for funding directly address the problem identification results. Proposed projects must include performance measures designed to demonstrate how the project will have a positive impact on reducing traffic safety-related crashes, fatalities or injuries. Other factors considered in the project selection process are the availability of funds, restricted use of National Priority area funds, and the need to develop a comprehensive and balanced traffic safety program.

State agencies and other organizations interested in traffic safety issues may propose projects to TSD at any time throughout the year, however they are encouraged to submit project proposals to TSD before July 1 for funding in that federal fiscal year. Proposals, if received after July 1, are used by the TSD in the development of the State HSP for the following federal fiscal year. If after July 1, a project proposal was submitted with a request that it be funded in the current fiscal year; the TSD may consider the request based on project merit, available time and budget. All proposed projects must adhere to the State Procurement process.

Enter list of information and data sources consulted.

Information and Data Sources Consulted

Federal : Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS); NHTSA Countermeasures That Work, 8th Edition; Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 622, 2008; NHTSA Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies; GHSA Guidance for Developing Highway Safety Plans, May 2017 update; FMCSA and FHWA traffic-related statistics; and US Census Bureau population statistics.

Crash Data System: The NMDOT contracts with the University of New Mexico Traffic Research Unit (TRU) to manage the statewide database, including report processing, filing, storage, and reporting functions. The State has implemented an updated data entry system, and activities are ongoing to further develop the new data system to accept electronic data. Crash data is derived from police reports submitted on the uniform crash report form used by all New Mexico law enforcement agencies The State also maintains its own fatality tracking system to facilitate access to the most current fatality statistics.

Crash and Fatality Reports: Using data analysis and data linkage techniques, the University of New Mexico TRU combines crash records, highway data, driver records, geographic information and census data to produce annual statewide crash and DWI reports. TRU also makes available, via its website,



7/12/2018 GMSS

monthly statewide, county and NMDOT district fatality reports; community crash profile reports; and State, county and community crash maps.

Driver and Vehicle Data Systems: New Mexico’s Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) maintains the State’s comprehensive driver and vehicle databases. The MVD has implemented a new Tapestry driver and vehicle integrated system. The implementation of the Tapestry system addresses many of the recommendations addressed in the latest state Traffic Records Assessment.

The driver module compiles driver records that include citations and convictions, driver education and improvement course information, court abstracts, penalty assessments from law enforcement, sanctions from other jurisdictions, notices of suspension or revocations, medical reports, clearances from courts and other jurisdictions, and fees paid.

The vehicle title and registration module contains field edit and validation checks to ensure data is accurate, and VINs are decoded to validate vehicle information. Tapestry’s NMVTIS real time integration is fully complete and uses all facets of the database including title number verification and NCIC stolen vehicle and branding checks.

The State of New Mexico participates in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) that seeks improve the safety of commercial vehicles and transport, and thereby, to reduce the number of commercial vehicle crashes.

Roadway Data System: NMDOT’s Roadway Data System provides information on roadway usage, vehicle miles traveled, speed monitoring and road characteristics. The State is currently updating their roadway data system to the FHWA-sponsored All Roads Network of Linear Referenced Data (ARNOLD). The ARNOLD Phase I and Phase II projects encompassed the development of the geo-spatial representation of the NMDOT Linear Reference System to include the national highway system, state-owned and maintained roads, local roads, and federal roads. NMDOT now has geo-spatial representation on 53,599 miles of roadway that previously only had a tabular representation.

Other Data/ Information Sources: Program/project sub-grantee reports and operational plans, NM Seatbelt Observation surveys, Attitude and Awareness Survey on Highway Safety Issues in New Mexico (via MVD customer surveys), statewide injury surveillance system, NM State Police data, and statewide or local assessments.

Enter description of the outcomes from the coordination of the Highway Safety Plan (HSP), data collection, and information systems with the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Coordination of HSP, SHSP and HSIP

NMDOT staff involved in the HSP, the SHSP and the HSIP participated in numerous planning and development meetings including those focused on data collection, problem identification and information systems. The HSP, SHSP and HSIP development teams review roadway, crash and other traffic and traffic safety related data to assist in the identification of high priority issues.



7/12/2018 GMSS

To coordinate the development of common measure targets for the FFY19 HSP and the annual HSIP, staff from the Traffic Safety and Planning Divisions, NM FHWA, and data and planning contractors held meetings in March, April and May 2018. Ten years of annual and five-year moving average data was reviewed for each of the common measures, and included preliminary data for 2016, preliminary or projected data for 2017 and projected data for 2018 and 2019. Participants discussed the projected annual and five-year average targets and any factors that would support selection of alternate projected targets. Participants then came to agreement on 2019 performance targets for the three common measures for the HSP and HSIP.

3 Performance report

Open each performance measure listed below or click Add New to create additional non-core performance measures to provide a program-area-level report on the State’s progress towards meeting State performance targets from the previous fiscal year's HSP.

Performance Measure Name

C-1) Number of traffic fatalities (FARS)

C-2) Number of serious injuries in traffic crashes (State crash data files)

C-3) Fatalities/VMT (FARS, FHWA)

C-4) Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, all seat positions (FARS)

C-5) Number of fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with a BAC of .08 and above (FARS)

C-6) Number of speeding-related fatalities (FARS)

C-7) Number of motorcyclist fatalities (FARS)

C-8) Number of unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities (FARS)

C-9) Number of drivers age 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes (FARS)

C-10) Number of pedestrian fatalities (FARS)

C-11) Number of bicyclists fatalities (FARS)

B-1) Observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat outboard occupants (survey)

Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress

In Progress



7/12/2018 GMSS


Progress: In Progress

Enter a program-area-level report on the State’s progress towards meeting State performance targets from the previous fiscal year’s HSP.

Difference 2018 2015 2018 HSP

Performance Measure Projected (Projected vs. Baseline Target Data 2018 Target)

C1 Limit the Increase - Total Fatalities 342.2 364.1 369.4 +5.3






C2 Reduce Serious Injuries 1,445.0 1,219.4 1,149.9 -69.5




2018 Difference 2015 2018 HSP

Performance Measure Baseline Target

Projected

Data (Projected vs.

2018 Target)



7/12/2018 GMSS

C3 Limit the Increase - Fatality Rate 1.326 1.330 1.344 +0.014






Limit the Increase - Unrestrained C4 99 107 111 +4

Occupant Fatalities




2018 Difference

Performance Measure 2015

Baseline

2018 HSP

Target Projected

Data (Projected vs.

2018 Target)

Limit the Increase – C5 103 125 115 -10

Alcohol-impaired Fatalities




7/12/2018 GMSS





Projected

Data (Projected vs.

2018 Target)

C6 Reduce Speeding-related Fatalities 131 125 139 +14






C7 Reduce Motorcyclist Fatalities 47 42 46 +4






Projected

Data (Projected vs.

2018 Target)



7/12/2018 GMSS

C8 Reduce Unhelmeted MC Fatalities 31 30 27 -3






Reduce Under-21 Drivers inC9 39 33 45 +12

Fatal Crashes






Limit the Increase – Pedestrian C10 56 74 72 -2

Fatalities



7/12/2018 GMSS




2018 Difference

Performance Measure 2015

Baseline

2018 HSP

Target Projected

Data (Projected vs.

2018 Target)

C11 Maintain Bicyclist Fatalities 5 5 4 -1






Projected

Data (Projected vs.

2018 Target)

B1 Increase Seatbelt Use Percent 92 93 92 -1%

4 Performance plan

Open each performance measure listed below or click Add New to create additional non-core performance measures to provide a list of quantifiable and measurable highway safety performance targets that are data-driven, consistent with the Uniform Guidelines for Highway Safety Programs and based on highway safety problems identified by the State during the planning process.



7/12/2018 GMSS

Performance Measure Name













Crash Database Accuracy

Fatalities in Distracted Driving Crashes

Public Information

Target Period(Performance

Target)

5 Year

5 Year

5 Year

5 Year

Annual

5 Year

5 Year

5 Year

5 Year

5 Year

5 Year

Annual

Annual

5 Year

Annual

Target StartYear

(Performance Target)

2015

2015

2015

2015

2019

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2019

2019

2015

2019

Target EndYear

(Performance Target)

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

Target Value(Performance

Target)

375.0

1,100.0

1.318

116.0

125.0

143.0

45.0

27.0

48.0

75.0

4.0

92.0

1,000.0

154.0

80.0


Is this a traffic records system performance measure?

No



7/12/2018 GMSS

C-1) Number of traffic fatalities (FARS)-2019

Target Metric Type: Numeric

Target Value: 375.0

Target Period: 5 Year

Target Start Year: 2015

Enter justification for each performance target that explains how the target is data-driven, including a discussion of the factors that influenced the performance target selection.

Justification: Five-year average fatalities fell by 7 percent between 2011 and 2015, but then rose in 2016 to their highest level in ten years. 2017 preliminary data and 2018 and 2019 projected data indicate fatalities remaining high. Although the 5-year trend line indicates a 5 percent increase in overall fatalities from 2016 to 2019, given the projected increases in pedestrian, speeding and alcohol-impaired fatalities the State has determined a 6.4 percent increase in overall fatalities to be an achievable target in 2019.



No

C-2) Number of serious injuries in traffic crashes (State crash data files)-2019


Target Value: 1,100.0




Justification: Five-year average serious injuries are projected to fall by 14.7 percent between 2016 and 2018, and the State anticipates a continued reduction in serious injuries in 2019. The State has determined a 17.5 percent reduction in these injuries from 2016 to 2019 is achievable.



No

C-3) Fatalities/VMT (FARS, FHWA)-2019



7/12/2018 GMSS


Target Value: 1.318




Justification: Although five-year average fatalities are expected to increase in 2019 from 2016, with VMT expected to continue rising, the State determines that the projected 2019 five-year fatality rate is an achievable target. Five-year average 2019 projections for urban and rural fatality rates are determined to be achievable targets.



No

C-4) Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, all seat positions (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 116.0




Justification: Five-year average unrestrained occupant fatalities rose in 2016, and the trend line indicates a continued rise in these fatalities. The State has determined the five-year average projection as achievable in 2019.



No

C-5) Number of fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with a BAC of .08 and above(FARS)-2019




7/12/2018 GMSS

Target Value: 125.0

Target Period: Annual



Justification: Annual alcohol-impaired fatalities fell by 9.6 percent between 2011 and 2015, but these fatalities rose again in 2016. Projections for 2018 and 2019 indicate further increases, but the State has chosen a moderately lower

fatality target than the projected data indicate.



No

C-6) Number of speeding-related fatalities (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 143.0




Justification: Five-year average speeding-related fatalities have been declining since 2014, but preliminary 2017 data indicate a rise in these fatalities, as do the projected data. The State determines that the 2019 five-year projection is achievable.



No

C-7) Number of motorcyclist fatalities (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 45.0





7/12/2018 GMSS


Justification: Five-year average motorcyclist fatality data indicate motorcyclist fatalities remained steady between 2015 and 2016, and projected data indicate the number of fatalities declining in 2019. The State determines that the five-year projection is achievable in 2019.



No

C-8) Number of unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 27.0




Justification: Five-year unhelmeted motorcyclist fatality data indicate a relatively steady decline in fatalities from a high of 41 in 2011 and 2012. Based on five-year averages, over the past four years, between 57 and 66 percent of motorcyclist fatalities have been unhelmeted. The State has determined to set its 2019 target for unhelmeted fatalities at 60 percent of anticipated motorcyclist fatalities.



No

C-9) Number of drivers age 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 48.0






7/12/2018 GMSS

Justification: After steadily declining between 2012 and 2015, these fatalities have begun increasing. Preliminary and projected data indicate increases over the next three years; however given the State’s focus on driver education and distracted driving issues, the State has determined the five-year target as achievable in 2019.



No

C-10) Number of pedestrian fatalities (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 75.0




Justification: Five-year average data show that pedestrian fatalities rose by 48 percent between 2012 and 2016, following trends seen in many other states. Pedestrian fatalities are expected to continue rising, and the State is projecting a slightly higher target that the five-year average, but a smaller year-to-year increase than in previous years.



No

C-11) Number of bicyclists fatalities (FARS)-2019


Target Value: 4.0




Justification: Five-year average data indicate the State can anticipate a lower number of bicyclist fatalities in 2019 than in the two previous years, but with the number of bicyclists and bicyclist events increasing, and the



7/12/2018 GMSS

increased impact of alcohol-impaired bicyclists, the State has determined to maintain its target at the same level as in the two previous years.



No

B-1) Observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat outboard occupants (survey)-2019

Target Metric Type: Percentage

Target Value: 92.0




Justification: New Mexico’s observed seatbelt use percentage has remained above 90 percent since 2011. After declining by 1 percent between 2015 and 2016, the State determines it can maintain its seatbelt use at 92 percent in 2019.

Crash Database Accuracy


Yes

Primary performance attribute: Accuracy

Core traffic records data system to be impacted: Crash

Crash Database Accuracy-2019


Target Value: 1,000.0






7/12/2018 GMSS

Increasing use of NHTSA's vPIC batch VIN decoder tool during crash database cleaning to populate the missing and invalid vehicle manufacture will generate this proposed improvement., and improve accuracy of data in the crash database.

Fatalities in Distracted Driving Crashes


No

Fatalities in Distracted Driving Crashes-2019


Target Value: 154.0




Five-year average data indicate the State can anticipate a lower number of distracted driving crashes in 2019 from 2016, and the State has determined the five-year target as achievable in 2019.

Public Information


No

Public Information-2019

Target Metric Type: Percentage

Target Value: 80.0




The State maintains high levels of public information media and education efforts in support of its enforcement activities, and anticipates maintaining wide-spread recognition of its campaign messages and slogans.



7/12/2018 GMSS

State HSP performance targets are identical to the State DOT targets for common performance measures (fatality, fatality rate, and serious injuries) reported in the HSIP annual report, as coordinated through the State SHSP.

Check the box if the statement is correct. Yes

Enter grant-funded enforcement activity measure information related to seat belt citations, impaired driving arrests and speeding citations.

A-1) Number of seat belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities*

Fiscal year 2017

Seat belt citations 9,582

A-2) Number of impaired driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities

Fiscal year 2017

Impaired driving arrests 1,947

A-3) Number of speeding citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities*

Fiscal year 2017

Speeding citations 40,693

5 Program areas

Program Area Hierarchy

1. Impaired Driving (Drug and Alcohol) Prosecution and Adjudication

Supervised Probation – Metro Court 164 Transfer Funds-AL

Supervised Probation – Santa Fe County 164 Transfer Funds-AL

Vehicle Forfeiture Conference 164 Transfer Funds-AL

ALR Hearing Prosecution Attorney 164 Transfer Funds-AL

Court Monitoring - MADD 164 Transfer Funds-AL

DWI/ Drug Courts – AOC FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Mid



7/12/2018 GMSS

BAC Testing Training – SLD FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Mid

Enforcement and Training Alcohol/Impaired Driving Enforcement

164 Transfer Funds-AL DWI Task Force – McKinley County

164 Transfer Funds-AL Alcohol Sales Compliance/DWI Warrant Enforcement

164 Transfer Funds-AL Statewide DWI Enforcement Training

164 Transfer Funds-AL Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Liaisons

164 Transfer Funds-AL Department of Public Safety - Batmobiles

164 Transfer Funds-AL Alcohol/Impaired Driving Enforcement

MAP 21 405d Impaired Driving Mid DRE and ARIDE Training

FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Mid Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor

FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Mid Department of Public Safety – Special Projects

MAP 21 405d Impaired Driving Mid Communications and Outreach, and Prevention Education

DWI Workgroup Meeting Facilitation 164 Transfer Funds-AL

Traffic Safety Clearinghouse 164 Transfer Funds-AL

DWI Media Creative Design and Production 164 Transfer Funds-AL

DWI Media Placement 164 Transfer Funds-PM

UAD Prevention Creative Design & Production 164 Transfer Funds-AL

ZeroProof Campaign 164 Transfer Funds-AL

Impaired Driving Media Creative Design and Production FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Mid

Impaired Driving Media Placement FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Mid

2. Traffic Records Improve the Availability, Quality and Utility of Crash Data

Crash Data Statistical and Analytical Reporting FAST Act 405c Data Program

Traffic Records Statistician FAST Act NHTSA 402

3. Occupant Protection (Adult and Child Passenger Safety) OP Communications and Outreach

Seatbelt Observation Surveys https://nhtsagmss.crm9.dynamics.com/main.aspx?area=Nav_Application&etc=10046&page=Applications_HQ&pagetype=entitylist&web=true#802… 27/235


7/12/2018 GMSS

FAST Act 405b OP HighClick It or Ticket Paid Media Placement

FAST Act 405b OP HighChild Restraint Inspection Stations, CPS Training and Safety Seat Distribution

Child Restraint ProgramFAST Act NHTSA 402

Child Safety Seats/ Booster Seats FAST Act 405d Impaired Driving Int

4. Police Traffic Services PTS Enforcement and Training

Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Liaisons FAST Act NHTSA 402

100 Days and Nights of SummerFAST Act NHTSA 402

Traffic Safety Resource ProsecutorFAST Act NHTSA 402

Selective Traffic EnforcementFAST Act NHTSA 402

General Law Enforcement TrainingFAST Act NHTSA 402

5. Motorcycle Safety Motorcycle Rider Training

Motorcycle Safety Training FAST Act 405f Motorcycle Programs

6. Non-motorized (Pedestrians and Bicyclist) PED Communications and Outreach

Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety FAST Act 405h Nonmotorized Safety

7. Driver Education and Behavior DE Communications and Outreach

Traffic Safety ClearinghouseFAST Act NHTSA 402

NCSAs/ Media TrainingFAST Act NHTSA 402

Traffic Safety Awareness SurveyFAST Act NHTSA 402

NCSAs/ Media TrainingFAST Act 405b OP High

Distracted Driving Awareness Media Placement FAST Act 405e Special Distracted Driving

8. Planning & Administration (none)

Alcohol/ID Program Management-FTEs 164 Transfer Funds-PA

E-Grants – Phase Two164 Transfer Funds-PA

E-Grants – Web Hosting164 Transfer Funds-PA

OP Program Management – FTEs https://nhtsagmss.crm9.dynamics.com/main.aspx?area=Nav_Application&etc=10046&page=Applications_HQ&pagetype=entitylist&web=true#802… 28/235


7/12/2018 GMSS

FAST Act NHTSA 402 Police Traffic Services Program Management

FAST Act NHTSA 402 Financial Management – FTEs

FAST Act NHTSA 402HSP, Grant and Technical Writing Services

FAST Act NHTSA 402E-Grants – Phase Two

FAST Act NHTSA 402E-Grants – Web Hosting

FAST Act NHTSA 402

5.1 Program Area: Impaired Driving (Drug and Alcohol)

Program area type Impaired Driving (Drug and Alcohol)

Will countermeasure strategies and planned activities be described in this plan to address the program area?

Yes

Is this program area part of the State occupant protection program area plan for a 405(b) application that identifies the safety problems to be addressed, performance measures and targets, and the countermeasure strategies and planned activities the State will implement to address those problems, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(c) and (d)?

No

Problem identification

Enter description and analysis of the State’s highway safety problems (for this program area) as identified through an analysis of data, including but not limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, and judicial data, to be used as a basis for setting performance targets and developing countermeasure strategies.

Program Area Problem Identification

In 2016, there were 2,073 alcohol-involved crashes*, 171 fatalities and 176 serious injuries; 42.2 percent of all crash fatalities were alcohol-involved.

Although the number of alcohol-involved crashes increased from 2015, the percentage of alcohol-involved crashes out of all crashes is at its lowest level in the past five years (4.6%). Alcohol-involved fatal crashes increased by 44.7 percent, while serious injury crashes decreased by 21.8 percent.

The top five counties for fatalities and serious injuries in alcohol-involved crashes were Bernalillo, San Juan, McKinley, Santa Fe and Doña Ana. These counties accounted for 66.6 percent of all alcohol-involved fatalities and serious injuries.



7/12/2018 GMSS

Fatalities in alcohol-involved crashes increased in 2016 from 2015 in both urban and rural areas, but the increase was greater in rural areas (51% vs. 36%).

Preliminary 2017 data indicate a 15.2 percent decrease in alcohol-involved fatalities compared to 2016. Counties showing the highest number of decreases in these fatalities in 2017 include: Bernalillo (-13), Rio Arriba (-8), Luna (-4), and Torrance (-4); counties showing the highest increases include: McKinley (+10), Otero (+3) and Valencia (+3).

In 2016, the number of alcohol-impaired (.08 and above) fatalities increased by 20 percent from 2015, and accounted for 29 percent of all crash fatalities.

Males were 2.4 times more likely than females to be an alcohol-involved driver in a crash.

The alcohol-involved driver crash rate for drivers under age 21 rose in 2016 to 2.12 from 1.81 in 2015; the rate of alcohol-involved New Mexico teen drivers (age 15-19) in crashes rose from 1.65 in 2015 to 2.02 in 2016. In 2016, drivers ages 20-39 were 62 percent of alcohol-involved drivers in crashes.

The number and rate of teen and under-21 drivers in alcohol-involved crashes rose in 2016 from 2015. The rise is particularly among female teen and under-21 drivers. The number of female teen drivers in alcohol-involved crashes more than doubled in 2016 from 2015. The number of female under-21 drivers in alcohol-involved crashes rose by 45.4 percent.

In 2016, there were more alcohol-involved crashes and fatal alcohol-involved crashes on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, with Saturday being the day with the highest number of alcohol-involved crashes and fatal alcohol-involved crashes. The peak hour for alcohol-involved crashes is from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., but in general, alcohol-involved crashes increase at 5 p.m. and are sustained at high levels through midnight. On Friday and Saturday nights, most alcohol-involved crashes occur between 5 p.m. and 3 a.m.

In 2016, there were 31 drug-involved fatal crashes compared to 10 in 2015, with 33 people killed compared to 10 in 2015. Drug-involved crashes (where alcohol is not involved) accounted for 0.6 percent of all crashes.

* An alcohol-involved crash is a crash in which the State uniform crash report indicated that 1) a DWI citation was issued, 2) alcohol

was a contributing factor, or 3) a person in control of a vehicle (including a pedestrian or bicyclist) was suspected of being under the

influence of alcohol. Alcohol-involved crashes involve one or more alcohol-involved drivers

Identified Focus Areas

High-Risk Locations: Bernalillo, San Juan, McKinley, Santa Fe and Doña Ana counties High-Risk Demographic: Males 20-39, Females under age 21 High-Risk Times: Friday-Sunday; 5 p.m. to 12 a.m.

Performance measures

Select at least one performance measure that is data-driven, that enables the State to track progress toward meeting the quantifiable annual target. For program areas where performance measures have not been jointly developed (e.g., distracted driving, drug-impaired driving) for which States are using HSP funds, the State shall develop its own performance measures and performance targets that are data-driven.



7/12/2018 GMSS

Performance Measures in Program Area

Fiscal Performance Measure Name

Year

C-5) Number of fatalities in crashes involving a driver 2019 or motorcycle operator with a BAC of .08 and above

(FARS)

2019 Public Information

TargetPeriod(Performance

Target)

Annual

Annual

TargetEndYear

2019

2019

TargetValue(Performance

Target)

125.0

80.0

Countermeasure strategies

Select existing countermeasure strategies below and/or click Add New to enter and select countermeasure strategies to submit for program area.

Countermeasure Strategies in Program Area

Fiscal Year Countermeasure Strategy Name

2019 Prosecution and Adjudication

2019 Enforcement and Training

2019 Communications and Outreach, and Prevention Education

5.1.1 Countermeasure Strategy: Prosecution and Adjudication

Program area Impaired Driving (Drug and Alcohol)

Countermeasure strategy Prosecution and Adjudication

Innovative countermeasure strategies are countermeasure strategies which have not yet been proven effective in the highway safety arena but show potential based on limited practical application. Justification of innovative countermeasure strategies can be based on past successes when applied to other behavioral safety problems.

Is this countermeasure strategy innovative?

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the planned high visibility enforcement strategies that support national mobilizations? § 1300.11(d)(6)

No



7/12/2018 GMSS

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State occupant protection grant application (§ 405(b)) for child restraint inspection stations? § 1300.21(d)(3) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), demonstrating an active network of child passenger safety inspection stations and/or inspection events based on the State’s problem identification]

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State occupant protection grant application (§ 405(b)) for child passenger safety technicians? § 1300.21(d)(4) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), for recruiting, training and maintaining a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians based on the State’s problem identification]

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State occupant protection grant application (§ 405(b)) under the seat belt enforcement criterion? § 1300.21(e)(3) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d)(5), demonstrating that the State conducts sustained enforcement (i.e., a program of recurring efforts throughout the fiscal year of the grant to promote seat belt and child restraint enforcement), and that based on the State’s problem identification, involves law enforcement agencies responsible for seat belt enforcement in geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of either the State’s unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred or combined fatalities and serious injuries occurred]

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State occupant protection grant application (§ 405(b)) under the high risk population countermeasure programs criterion? § 1300.21(e)(4) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven programs to improve seat belt and child restraint use for at least two of the following at-risk populations: (i) Drivers on rural roadways; (ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers; (iii) Teenage drivers; (iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant protection program area plan required under § 1300.21(d) (1)]

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State occupant protection grant application (§ 405(b)) under the comprehensive occupant protection program criterion? § 1300.21(e)(5)(ii)(B) [Countermeasure strategies (such as enforcement, education, communication, policies/legislation, partnerships/outreach), at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), designed to achieve the performance targets of the strategic plan]

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State motorcyclist safety grant application (§ 405(f)) under the motorcyclist awareness program criterion? § 1300.25(f) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven programs in a majority of counties or political subdivisions where the incidence of crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle is highest]

No



7/12/2018 GMSS

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State motorcyclist safety grant application (§ 405(f)) under the impaired driving program criterion? § 1300.25(h)(2) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven programs designed to reach motorcyclists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator is highest]

No

Is this countermeasure strategy part of the State racial profiling data collection grant application (§ 1906)? § 1300.28(b)(2) [Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), supporting the assurances that the State will undertake activities during the fiscal year of the grant to comply with the requirements of § 1300.28(b)(1)]

No

Countermeasure strategy description

To describe the program area countermeasure strategy that will help the State complete its program and achieve specific performance targets, complete the following:

Enter assessment of the overall projected traffic safety impacts of the countermeasure strategy chosen and of the planned activities to be funded.

Assessment of Overall Projected TS Impacts

Countermeasure strategies proposed for the Alcohol/Impaired Driving Program impact all areas of the State, and projects associated with these strategies are focused on areas of identified need. Focusing on the identified high-risk areas and issues will help the State achieve the greatest impact on reducing the rate of alcohol-impaired driving crashes, fatalities and injuries.

In addition to high-visibility law enforcement and media, aggressive prosecution and adjudication of DWI offenders and a comprehensive ignition interlock program are the strategies most likely to impact changes in impaired driving behavior, and thereby, reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries.

Enter description of the linkage between program area problem identification data, performance targets, identified countermeasure strategy and allocation of funds to planned activities.

Program Component Linkages

The Alcohol/ID Program problem identification data pinpoint the high-risk counties, demographic and times for alcohol and drug involved crashes, fatalities and serious injuries. The performance target of limiting the increase in alcohol-impaired fatalities in FFY19 to 6 percent from 2016 will assist the State in assessing the overall impact of its planned countermeasures strategies and projects. The rise in alcohol-impaired fatalities is likely the result of a number of factors including higher rates of travel due to an improving economy and law enforcement capacity limitations in some areas of the State.

The planned countermeasure strategies have been shown to be among the most effective methods for reducing impaired driving and its consequences. Enforcement and high-visibility media activities are supported by other projects such as ignition interlock, DWI courts and supervised probation that focus on



7/12/2018 GMSS

preventing recidivism among high-risk offenders. Law enforcement training, court monitoring, and judicial education and outreach increase the likelihood of successful prosecution and adjudication of impaired driving offenders. These projects account for 95% of federal funds in the Alcohol/ID Program Plan.

Alcohol/Impaired Driving Program countermeasure projects are estimated to reach at least 85 percent of the State’s population. The State will continue to focus on implementing the planned strategies and projects, and is confident that proposed levels of funding and activities will produce positive results for the Program and allow the State to achieve its performance targets.

Evidence of effectiveness

Enter a rationale for selecting the countermeasure strategy and funding allocation for each planned activity.

Rationale for Selected Countermeasure Strategies

Alcohol/Impaired Driving Program countermeasure strategies were selected based on a review of NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work, 8th Edition, 2015 and the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 622, 2008. Chosen countermeasures are evidence-based and have been shown to be effective strategies for addressing traffic safety issues. Strategies are based primarily on high-visibility and sustained enforcement combined with outreach and media, law enforcement training, and support of the judiciary. The following strategy aligns with Safety Emphasis Areas detailed in New Mexico’s 2016 NMDOT Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Strategy – Prosecution and Adjudication

In addition to high-visibility law enforcement and media, aggressive prosecution and adjudication, supervision of convicted DWI offenders and a comprehensive ignition interlock program are the strategies most likely to impact changes in impaired driving behavior, particularly recidivism, and to thereby reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries.

Currently, there are nine DWI/ Drug Courts in New Mexico that focus on DWI cases, and there are another 42 drug court programs (adult, juvenile, family dependency) that handle a broader range of drug-involved cases. These courts operate in 27 of New Mexico's 33 counties at District, Metropolitan and Magistrate court levels. The NMDOT funds a contract with the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide funding to support seven of the nine DWI/ Drug Courts.

DWI/ Drug courts are grounded in evidence-based practices and are less expensive than incarceration of the offender. Conservative estimates by researchers show that for every $1 invested in Drug Court, the justice system saves $3.36. The community saves up to $12 (per $1 investment) on reduced emergency room visits and other medical care, foster care and property loss. In FFY17, The New Mexico DWI Court Graduate recidivism rate was 8.36 percent, and the average Drug Court Graduate recidivism rate was 12.62 percent (three years post program exit) while the average New Mexico Corrections Department re-incarceration rate was 44.6 percent.



7/12/2018 GMSS

In FFY19, NMDOT will continue to fund a contract to monitor, gather information and report on impaired driving court cases utilizing a court monitoring information storage system. Cases will primarily be from courts in the State’s counties with the highest number of DWI arrests and fatalities. Case, charge, arraignment, pretrial, and sanction information will be collected. Court, judge, district attorney and defense counsel information will be documented, as well as comparisons to impaired driving sanctions in other jurisdictions in the State. The project will identify instances of generous plea bargains, lenient sentencing, and low bond amounts in an effort to pinpoint where the judicial process can be strengthened. Supervised probation of convicted DWI offenders projects will again be funded in FFY19.

The NMDOT provides funds for a traffic safety resource prosecutor (TSRP) and staff assistant to provide judicial education, training and technical support to judges, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to improve their knowledge about impaired driving laws, including minimum mandatory sanctions, ignition interlock laws and other sentencing guidelines. The positions are housed under the New Mexico Attorney General’s office. In response to an administrative recommendation from the most recent SFST Assessment, NMDOT will provide funds for an ALR hearing prosecution attorney to provide State representation at ALR hearings in counties with an identified need.

In FFY19, New Mexico will support efforts to improve judicial outcomes, particularly in DWI cases by:

a. funding DWI/ Drug Courts b. funding a court monitoring project, a traffic safety resource prosecutor, and an ALR hearing

prosecution attorneyc. providing education on DWI issues including arrest, adjudication, sentencing, screening,

treatment, ignition interlock requirements and new developments in the lawd. funding a supervised probation program for high-risk DWI offenders

(Countermeasures That Work, 8th Edition, 2015: Chapter 1, Alcohol- and Drug-Impaired Driving: Sections 3.1 DWI Courts; 3.2

Limits on Diversion and Plea Agreements; 3.3 Court Monitoring; 3.4 Sanctions; 4.1 Alcohol Problem Assessment and Treatment;

4.3 Vehicle and License Plate Sanctions; 4.4 DWI Offender Monitoring. Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative

Highway Research Program Report 622, 2008: Chapters 2-7. NHTSA Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs:

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 8 - Impaired Driving; III. Criminal Justice System: E. Adjudication)

Planned activities

Select existing planned activities below and/or click Add New to enter and select planned activities that the State will conduct to support the countermeasure strategies within each program area to address its problems and achieve its performance targets.

Planned activities in countermeasure strategy



7/12/2018 GMSS

Planned activity unique identifier Planned Activity Name Primary Countermeasure

19-AL-64-P04 Supervised Probation – Metro Court Prosecution and Adjudication

19-AL-64-P05 Supervised Probation – Santa Fe County Prosecution and Adjudication

19-AL-64-P06 Vehicle Forfeiture Conference Prosecution and Adjudication

19-AL-64-P10 ALR Hearing Prose

u.s. department of transportation - national highway ...the vehicle title and registration module...

Documents